[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140712173502.GC25730@openwall.com>
Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2014 21:35:02 +0400
From: "(GalaxyMaster)" <galaxy@...nwall.com>
To: owl-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: new RPM and old database format
All,
The new RPM package is currently built with the internal copy of BDB
5.3.28. This version of BDB uses V9 database format as native. Our
previous RPM was using BDB4 which supported V8 database format.
The new RPM can work with V8 databases, but may occasionally issue
warnings (e.g. when it wants to create a missing index). These warnings
are harmless, I believe.
Please avoid running 'rpmdb --rebuilddb' if you want to keep V8
database. It's unclear at this stage whether we are going to keep BDB5
or maybe we decide to use our system-wide BDB for RPM.
The reason I went for BDB5 is because Fedora is using it and the minimum
version of BDB4 RPM 4.11+ supports is 4.5, while Owl provides 4.3.
However, I'm tending to switch to BDB4 for our RPM since there are
almost no benefits of using BDB5 here, yet it means that we need to keep
another copy of BDB in the source tree, but what's more important is
that we will need to fix issues there.
Any comments on the issue? Do you have a preference in relation to the
database version? :)
--
(GM)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
